POCATELLO, Idaho, Jan.15 — Ferrol Barlow is a folksy sort of businessman who prefers to be called “Bill” and who says that he has “never been in the grease before.” But he has become a hero to some small‐business men because he has taken on the United States Department of Labor in a court battle and forced a halt to inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in Idaho. The court fight probably will go to the Supreme Court and could have a national effect on the OSHA program.

Mr. Barlow's fight began in September 1975 when he refused to allow the agency's inspectors to enter his plumbingheating‐electrical supply house.

The Labor Department brought court action against Mr. Barlow, but he replied with a counteraction that contended that the safety agency's inspections violated the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unwarranted search.

Ruled Unconstitutional

A three‐judge Federal court in Idaho affirmed that contention in a ruling Dec. 30 that held that warrantless inspections by the safety agency were unconstitutional. The court also issued an order declaring the inspection provisions of the agency's law void, as well as an injunction to the Secretary of Labor and anyone under him barring any OSHA employee from attempting to inspect the business without a warrant.

Lawyers for the agency did not respond directly to the argument that its inspections were unconstitutional. However, they contended that the court in Idaho should not have considered the constitutionality of the law before Mr. Barlow had said exhausted all avenues of relief. They said that Mr. Barlow could have allowed the inspection under protest and then appealed through the administrative process of the agency.

The safety agency has been involved in controversy since it began its inspections in 1971 in an effort to alleviate Working conditions that kill, injure or sicken millions of Americans each year. In 1975 and in the first nine months of 1976, the agency made 151,429 inspections that resulted in 117,313 citations. About 98 percent of the citations were for minor infractions and brought penalties averaging $13. The average penalty for a serious violation was about $600.

Many businessmen complain that the inspections amount to harassment, but many labor leaders say that the program has not been administered strongly enough to protest workers from hazardous conditions.

“What everyone must understand is that this order covers the entire country in that it is directed to the Secretary of Labor and the Department,” said Mr. Barlow's attorney, John Runft.

“The injunction voids the authority of OSHA to make inspections under any circumstances throughout the U.S.,” Mr. Runft said.

Applicable Only in Idaho

However, the safety agency's associate solicitor in Washington, Benjamin W. Mintz, said, “We construe the order as applicable only in Idaho where that threejudge court has jurisdiction.” Mr. Mintz said that his office would move in the Supreme Court for a stay of execution of the Idaho injunction.

While the lawyers have been pondering their next steps, Mr. Barlow, a 61‐yearold grandfather and a member of the John Birch Society, has been gaining a measure of fame. He said he receives about a dozen telephone calls daily from other small businessmen across the country who are either supporting his cause or seeking information for their battles with the safety agency.

Both Mr. Barlow and officials of the safety agency agree that the inspection of his business was a “routine visit,” without probable cause for complaint.

Robert W. Macfarlane, head of the A.F.L.‐C.I.O. in Idaho, criticized the decision, saying, “You can't rate the economy with the blood of the working people.”

He said that his organization would support the safety agency in trying to overturn the decision in the Supreme Court.

In their ruling, Judges M. Oliver Keolsch, J. Blaine Anderson, and Ray McNichols stressed that the issue was not the safety agency itself, or even the need for health and safety laws.

“Our only concern is the alleged affront to the Fourth Amendment,” they declared, adding in a footnote, “ . . . Expediency is the argument of tyrants, it precedes the loss of every human liberty.”

They suggested alternative methods of inspection that would be “less oppressive,” including the participation of organized labor in inspections.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on January 17, 1977, on Page 14 of the New York edition with the headline: Idahoan Wins Right to Curb U.S. Safety Checks at Plants. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe